(10-04-2012 04:05 PM)Red Tornado Wrote: Many...currently:
Carbon Dating is as it is because of Noah's flood, all of the water "pressured" the samples, making it the way it is...millions of years "off".

Because alot of religions had a flood, Noah's flood is correct.

It wasn't shamelessly copied from other religions was it? No no no surely not!

Tbh I have no fucking clue whats going on in their mind.

Here is their entire latest post

Quote: You are aware that you haven't yet given me solid proof to disprove the Flood. As I can't prove it, and you can't disprove it, we seem to be at a checkmate.
Also of note- the people who believe in the flood all have a creation story, and don't believe in evolution. 6,000 years is more than enough if the dinosaurs were created with the other creatures that crawl on land, and swim in the water and fly in the air.
From a purely evolutionary view point, you are right. 6,000 years would not allow for the evolution of dinosaurs. However, you must take into account the other religions that maintain that there was a flood, of which there are more than one, all of which hold to creationist views.
Besides, there are multiple reasons for why macro-evolution can't have happened, which I shan't go into now for the simple sake of time and space.
One last thing. Carbon dating hasn't yet been proven completely accurate, but I believe that given time we can hone it to perfection. It is our best guess, but seriously, who has set a piece of carbon in one place under perfect conditions for it to age and left it there for several million years? I don't think that the primeval sciences of ancient times had what it takes to set something like that up for us to use and test today.

if anyone would like to give me "proof" to disprove the flood (although the evolution and the carbon dating should have been enough in a thinking person's mind >> ) feel free to give me some.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.

It has always bothered me that in the end the only true "evidence" any religion can point to is their particular holy book written thousands of years ago by ignorant and scared human beings. So the stupidest argument for religion is the only argument . . . "The Bible says so."

People arguing for the truth of the New Testament often assert that it's true because it was written not long after the events "happened". They claim that people hearing the stories about Jesus would have corrected the gospels because they would have known they were untrue. But how often do falsehoods actually get corrected in the sources themselves (rather than criticized elsewhere)?

There are plenty of counter-examples to this, such as the rise of the Mormon church. Not only are there 11 people who signed the front of the Book of Mormon attesting to seeing the fabled golden plates that the Book of Mormon was translated from, but that same book has not been edited or widely discredited, despite the evidence we now have against its claims.

Along this same line of thought is the belief that the bible is true because it's old. It usually isn't put in exactly this wording and usually has other claims paired with it, but I've heard plenty of times that the fact that the bible is ancient makes it more credible.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.

(10-04-2012 04:05 PM)Red Tornado Wrote: Because alot of religions had a flood, Noah's flood is correct.

Now that one is truely dumb, for more than just the obvious reasons - it acknowledges truth in other religions. Why would a christian want to lend credance to another religion like that.

But think mine would be:

"I dont know why I know, I never thought about it"

either that or its the smartest, sometimes Im not sure.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.

The significance of Ziusudra's name appearing on the WB-62 king list
is that it links the flood mentioned in the three surviving Babylonian
deluge epics of Ziusudra (Eridu Genesis), Utnapishtim (Epic of Gilgamesh), and Atrahasis (Epic of Atrahasis)
to river flood sediments in Shuruppak, Uruk, Kish et al. that have been
radiocarbon dated to ca. 2900 BC. This has led some scholars to
conclude that the flood hero was king of Shuruppak at the end of the
Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3000–2900) which ended with the river flood of
2900 BC.[10]

Ziusudra being a king from Shuruppak is supported by the Gilgamesh XI
tablet (see below) making reference to Utnapishtim (Akkadian
translation of the Sumerian name Ziusudra) with the epithet "man of
Shuruppak" at line 23.
So the gist of the wall o text above there was a flood, there is both geological, archeogical and written evidence for, but there is no evidence of Noah, the evidence points to a King Ziusudra. From there you can lead onto Akhenaten, and Atenism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism ), this site also interesting ( http://ashraf62.wordpress.com/2011/05/09...history/), the first recorded monotheism and possable progenator of Judeaism and by extension of christianity. To be honest theres a huge amount in there to get your teeth into, the Great Hymn of the Aten ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten ) with its pallarels to the Lords prayer and other psalms is also an interesting avenue.
Ive been thinking on the subject of these two things for a while, but havent really formulated a coherent arguement, but I think its something along the lines of showing sources for the beliefs of the religion as it is currently practised and using that to show that far from being the foundation of wisdom or what have you, it is the adaption and sublimation of many earlier ideas. Anyway I wont go on with that as like I said Im not really all that sure what Im trying to say yet
Anyway hope you find some of that interesting, its not much on its own, but I think theres something there. Essentially, It wasn't shamelessly copied from other religions was it? No no no surely not!, but tactful like.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.

(10-04-2012 02:31 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote: 1) Read the Quran and god will reveal himself to you
2) I've read the Quran so I know god exists
3) therefore god exists

I've actually had someone use this one on me. I don't talk to Muslims often (they aren't a common thing around here). We were on the subject of atheism and he said - "Well that's great, you know, you should question everything around you and look to science."

I had the "Not sure of serious." look going on at about this time.

"So once you've researched everything you can and you've realized that the universe must need a creator and that god is real, pray hard to him, pray like you've never prayed, read the book and he will reveal himself to you like you could never imagine."

What? Lol. The problem with that is that to come to such a conclusion from a neutral stance, you must enter it with the assumption that one DOES exist. When I asked - "What was the moment you realized that he did?" I got "I can't explain it, you just have to search for yourself."

So wait wait waiiiiit a minute...

- Ok that's cool, you're a skeptic, look to science!
- When you've learned enough science you'll see that it's wrong because it will point to god.
- No, I can't give an example.
- Therefore god.